Beale on Broader Evangelicalism

[Jeff Straub] With BJ’s participation in Samaritan’s Purse Christmas boxes, one wonders just how far things may go. Is there anything wrong with sending Christmas boxes to kids? Of course not. Is there anything wrong with aligning with Franklin Graham’s work? Well, is this one example of a larger course shift in Greenville? Time will tell.

Jeff — your point is well taken regarding Beale’s book. I’ve appreciated his other works, and so I’m sure most of this current one is good, too. I should probably get it.

It was a brilliant PR move on the part of the BJU administration (if it is indeed moving the institution towards “Broad Evangelicalism”) to have impoverished, third-word children as the face of what it means to work with evangelicals. IMO, choosing Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse was NOT a coincidence or accident on the part of the administration. Considering BJU’s past relationship with the Graham family, it is too blatant. They chose this ground to do battle on.

Jeff is right, All the talk about dress standards and the like is NOT what Beale means, nor what those of us who are concerned about BJU are worried about. Yes, I might not like some of them, but they are not the issue.

[Don Johnson]

Jeff is right, All the talk about dress standards and the like is NOT what Beale means, nor what those of us who are concerned about BJU are worried about. Yes, I might not like some of them, but they are not the issue.

What is it? Spell it out!

It won’t let me embed the picture. Beale’s entire comment is here.

I find Beale’s use of the definite article and capitalization interesting: “the inclusive, Broad Evangelicalism.” Not sure what to make of that other than what Doran points out. There are only two groups: separatist Fundamentalism and Broad Evangelicalism. I smell a false dilemma.

So, basically, people are up in arms because instead of looking to separate from people, Pettit is looking to partner with people. We don’t like some of the people Pettit has chosen to partner with because these people don’t partner with the right people. So, this issue is basically over secondary separation, correct?

BTW, is there a charity like Samaritan’s Purse within separatist Fundamentalism that would be acceptable for Pettit and BJU to partner with? Just curious. Or, is that kind of charity seen as too social gospel-ish for card carrying separatist Fundamentalists?

Surely there are missions organizations, like BJU’s own GFA which could organize a similar ministry. (I know GFA and BJU are no longer directly linked. )

[T Howard] We don’t like some of the people Pettit has chosen to partner with because these people don’t partner with the right people.

Andy, would it be better if BJU partnered with a non-sectarian charity–let say a local food bank, crisis pregnancy center, or homeless shelter–instead of with Samaritan’s Purse?

Or, can BJU only partner with separatist Fundamentalist approved ministries?

Beale’s comment seems more than poorly nuanced. It may be that BJU isn’t the same type of separatist as they used to be. But for a historian not to know the difference between “Broad evangelicalism” and “conservative evangelicalism” seems strange to me, especially when it is capitalized. It is a disappointing comment to say the least because it appears to slam with a broad brush when a much narrower brush is warranted. And to only say that much about it is a strange thing. You have spent a whole book telling a story, a fascinating one and then that? It seems almost gratuitous … like I gotta get this jab in but I don’t want to take time to demonstrate it.

As for Samaritan’s Purse, there are significant reasons to think the whole venture is a bad idea regardless of who does it (because it can be the exporting of American materialism, the undermining of families and particularly father’s who can’t provide stuff for their families, etc.), but it is not as simple as “have GFA organize it.” There are a ton of logistics that go into it. Whether or not BJU should partner with Samaritan’s Purse might be a good question. But “Have GFA do it” is not a workable solution.

[T Howard] Andy, would it be better if BJU partnered with a non-sectarian charity–let say a local food bank, crisis pregnancy center, or homeless shelter–instead of with Samaritan’s Purse?

Or, can BJU only partner with separatist Fundamentalist approved ministries?

That’s a good question. Here is how I think about that, not just with this issue but in general.

It’s probably worth noting that BJU is a school and not a church, and so the issue of what constitutes non-biblical koinonia can get complicated, at least in my mind. Some things that the school does from an educational standpoint, like brining in guest artists or guest political speakers, does not constitute Christian fellowship/koinonia and thus does not violate the separation commands in the Bible that we have been talking about. However, because BJU is a *Christian* school, sometimes those distinctions can get hard to evaluate properly. I see the distinction between a chapel speaker and a political convocation. I would put a pastoral roundtable in the fellowship/koinonia bucket. I would put medical symposium in the non-fellowship bucket. What about athletic fundraising, anti-abortion pregnancy centers, and relief efforts? Those lines can get harder to draw confidently and consistently, and so some deference should be shown in these areas, I think.

The Samaritan’s Purse issue is a relief effort and there are several things that come into play here. First Paul talks about his relief effort for the saints in Jerusalem as koinonia (Rom 15:26, 2 Cor 9:13) and so this sort of thing can fall into this category. Second, Samaritan’s Purse isn’t any old relief agency, it’s headed by the president of the BGEA, and so partnering with that agency is going to send a message whether intended or not. Third, there is the social gospel angle to all this. I have not done a lot of thinking in this area, but in my mind, we don’t want to just give material relief to people in the name of Christianity, we want to point them to Jesus Christ and the gospel. But if that is what is going on, then the koinonia aspect comes into play again and all the concerns that come with that. All that to say, while I think we need to give some room for differing conclusions on these edge cases, this particular relief effort could have been handled in a way that doesn’t call into question their commitment to Biblical separation. One way to do that would be to use, as you suggest, a non-sectarian charity to make it more of an educational than a religious effort. If it is a fellowship/religious effort, then it ought to be done following clear Biblical instruction.

Thank you, Andy, for demonstrating a willingness to work through these complexities. Too many treat this as cut and dried, either or.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is in the doctrine of secondary separation. Separation from apostate Christianity is clearly commanded in Scripture. No disagreement here among Fundamentalists, and also among those usually categorized as Conservative Evangelicals. The issue get tougher when secondary separation is introduced. Here, Scriptural teaching is not as clear, and not surprisingly, particular real-life applications are more difficult. It often comes down to subjective opinion. “I don’t think any true Fundamentalist should have anything to do with so and so, because they have a slight connection with so and so.” I’m afraid it often comes down to a petty cat fight, not a principled application of Scripture.

For example, in 1972, I led a Ministry Team to the Northeast for BJU. (Called “Ensembles” in those days.) That was the first year that BJU teams were forbidden to minister in Southern Baptist churches. In 1971, teams went into a number of SBC churches. Was BJU compromising in 1971? Some thought so. Was BJU overly nit-picky in 1972? Some thought so. What is the clear Biblical doctrine that settles this issue? There is none. It’s a judgment call, a matter of personal opinion. In these areas, Christians need to show forbearance and tolerance, not accusations and a critical spirit.

Our dog has a tendency to push the limits of where she should go when we put her outside. She will go a little further than she has in the past and will look to see if anyone notices. The next time she goes a little further. After awhile she is almost to the edge of the yard. She is always looking to see how far she can go. A few small steps in the beginning eventually result in her being in the road. I would say she “slid” toward the dangerous road. Each individual action she takes seems insignificant until she is in the road.

Wally, that’s another example of the slippery slope fallacy. If IFB institution does X that will necessarily lead to Y.

BTW, secondary separation has been very problematic, as noted above, because it has been used to justify cutting off fellowship with other ministries and churches based on tribes, preferences, and cultural standards.

• “We don’t fellowship with church X because they allow their women to wear pants, and they listen to Southern Gospel music.”
• “We don’t fellowship with church Y because they fellowship with church X, who allows their women to wear pants, and church X also listens to Southern Gospel music.”
• “We won’t support you as a missionary because you went to college X.”

This is not a type of fundamentalism worth saving.

I am well aware of what type of argument it is. That’s why I gave the illustration. Someone may argue philosophical and logical principle as much as they want, but our dog still tries to go to the road, one small step at a time.